The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The contents of the apology posted by the Defendant are not false or false. (2) The Defendant agreed with E on the condition that the above apology is posted while being accused of a criminal trial due to defamation by publicly alleging false or false facts about E. Since the contents of the above apology revealing the false facts indicated by the Defendant against E, the Defendant did not recognize that the above apology was false.

3) The Defendant’s act is a true fact and solely on the public interest, and thus, illegality is excluded under Article 310 of the Criminal Act. B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. In determining whether the facts alleged in the crime of defamation by a false statement of false facts under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act are false or not, in examining the purport of the entire contents of the alleged facts, if it differs from the truth or is merely a degree of somewhat exaggerated expression in light of the overall purport of the alleged facts, it shall not be deemed as false, but if the important part is not consistent with the objective facts, it shall be deemed as false.

(1) In order to determine whether a person who committed a crime committed a crime with false knowledge of the facts at issue, it is difficult to ascertain or prove such false knowledge in light of the nature of the fact that it was made public, and in light of the details of the fact, the existence and content of the materials, the source and awareness of the facts revealed by the Defendant, etc., the determination ought to be made by comprehensively taking account of various objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s academic background, career, social status, public announcement process, time of publication, anticipated ripple effect, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do2627, Jul. 22, 2005). The following facts are acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the lower court.